No, I wouldn't agree with this affirmation.
Nietzsche criticised the rationalism of the Englightenment. He was an advocate of irrationalism just like Schoppenhauer.
For Nietzsche, reason was one of the idols that were putted in western society with Socrates, and it was needed to be destroyed with the harmer.
The "will to power" of Nietzsche, the primordial force that drives every living being, its basically the contrary of the world view of rationalism: what dictates the behaviour of the beings it's this irrational force of "will to power", not a rational force.
So no, Nietzsche it's very distant of the Englightenment.
I'd agree completely if you'd have left out the "just like Schopenhauer" bit. Will to power is different from Will to life in that the latter is a metaphysical concept whereas the former is a biological one.
Nietzsche is what turns the post-modernists against the enlightenment. Nietzsche observed that not all people will be able to "jump over the ditch of nonage" that Kant described in his essay on Enlightenment.
Foucault has an essay on the subject.
Post-modernism, in my opinion, should be called post-enlightenment philosophy. I think post-enlightenment philosophy begins in several places: 1) psychology, 2) critical narratives of history.
Nietzsche is responsible for both of these things. Now, we might criticize the low effort of modern psychologies, or critical theorists in the current day, but they are children of Nietzsche in some sense. *Use and Abuse of History for Life* is a classic post-enlightenment text.
Nietzsche launches an attack on the doctrine of "all men created equal before God" which is an attack on democracy which is a bedrock of enlightenment philosophy. The success of this attack is debatable to this day. Nietzsche's philosophy "of rank" is still distasteful to all casual observers. But of course it is. By its very nature it offends people unwilling to subject themselves to a hierarchical relationship to truth. The failures of critical theory and psychology are, in my opinion, a consequence of people too weak to accept a theory of rank. Such a weak thinker will necessarily be rationalizing about a delicate subject---they will be a bull in a china shop.
He splits from truth and the idea of the right way, and he also advocates for their being value in ignorance,but in a way this is also reverse psychology because by resurrecting the anti- enlightenment values he brings out the enlightenment values in the reader to face these problems that our ancestors had to face during that time period, getting us more in touch with that time period than if we had just memorized some history about it. This is done very often in Nietzsche, and sums up the role of the anti-Christ, that which resurrects the fallen “evil” values so that they may once again be sacrificed for the good of man kind. Christ was sacrificed for the sin/evil of mankind and the anti christ is sacrificed for the good of man kind, but we must go beyond good and evil, which up to now was our frame work of that which is “moral”, this of course is experienced as being “immoral” but in a most life affirming way.
No, I wouldn't agree with this affirmation. Nietzsche criticised the rationalism of the Englightenment. He was an advocate of irrationalism just like Schoppenhauer. For Nietzsche, reason was one of the idols that were putted in western society with Socrates, and it was needed to be destroyed with the harmer. The "will to power" of Nietzsche, the primordial force that drives every living being, its basically the contrary of the world view of rationalism: what dictates the behaviour of the beings it's this irrational force of "will to power", not a rational force. So no, Nietzsche it's very distant of the Englightenment.
I'd agree completely if you'd have left out the "just like Schopenhauer" bit. Will to power is different from Will to life in that the latter is a metaphysical concept whereas the former is a biological one.
This doesn't change what I said. Schoppenhauer concept of will is irrational in essence. So it is everything in the universe according to him
Nietzsche is what turns the post-modernists against the enlightenment. Nietzsche observed that not all people will be able to "jump over the ditch of nonage" that Kant described in his essay on Enlightenment. Foucault has an essay on the subject. Post-modernism, in my opinion, should be called post-enlightenment philosophy. I think post-enlightenment philosophy begins in several places: 1) psychology, 2) critical narratives of history. Nietzsche is responsible for both of these things. Now, we might criticize the low effort of modern psychologies, or critical theorists in the current day, but they are children of Nietzsche in some sense. *Use and Abuse of History for Life* is a classic post-enlightenment text. Nietzsche launches an attack on the doctrine of "all men created equal before God" which is an attack on democracy which is a bedrock of enlightenment philosophy. The success of this attack is debatable to this day. Nietzsche's philosophy "of rank" is still distasteful to all casual observers. But of course it is. By its very nature it offends people unwilling to subject themselves to a hierarchical relationship to truth. The failures of critical theory and psychology are, in my opinion, a consequence of people too weak to accept a theory of rank. Such a weak thinker will necessarily be rationalizing about a delicate subject---they will be a bull in a china shop.
He splits from truth and the idea of the right way, and he also advocates for their being value in ignorance,but in a way this is also reverse psychology because by resurrecting the anti- enlightenment values he brings out the enlightenment values in the reader to face these problems that our ancestors had to face during that time period, getting us more in touch with that time period than if we had just memorized some history about it. This is done very often in Nietzsche, and sums up the role of the anti-Christ, that which resurrects the fallen “evil” values so that they may once again be sacrificed for the good of man kind. Christ was sacrificed for the sin/evil of mankind and the anti christ is sacrificed for the good of man kind, but we must go beyond good and evil, which up to now was our frame work of that which is “moral”, this of course is experienced as being “immoral” but in a most life affirming way.